SHIV DHAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite the fact that all the above referred 11 Regular First Appeals are squarely covered on facts and law by a recent judgment of this Court passed in the case of Jasrath Vs. Union of India (RFA No.751/94 decided on 27th April, 2006), counsel for the respondent have raised a legal issue in regard to very maintainability and entertainment of these appeals by this Court. According to learned counsel appearing for the respondent, these appeals cannot be equated with the appeals remitted by the Supreme Court for fresh determination as per its order dated 7th September, 2005 either on factual matrix or in law. According to the respondent, the appellants in these appeals are not entitled to get the benefit of the judgment of this Court in Jasrath case. The order of remittance could at best revive the review applications, which themselves are not maintainable. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dwarka Das Vs. State of M.P. and Another (1993) 3 SCC 500 and Des Raj (Deceased) through LRs. and others Vs. Union of India and Another (2004) 7 SCC 753 to argue that the application filed before the High Court was beyond the scope of corrections, which could be directed to be carried out under the provisions of Sections 151 and 152 CPC. The fact that appellants had claimed review on the ground that in earlier judgment of Jasrath, higher compensation has been awarded is no ground for awarding higher compensation to the claimants in the present appeals. Both these arguments are inconsequential inasmuch as these were the arguments, which the respondents were required to raise at the time of hearing of CM 501/2002 and passing of order dated 19th July, 2002 by the Division Bench. Once that order was passed, all these controversies came to an end. Even that order has been set aside by the Supreme Court along with the order dated 4th September, 2001. Thus, these objections now cannot be of much help to the respondent.

(2.) In order to examine the merit of contentions raised on behalf of the respondents, it would be necessary for the Court to notice the facts, which have given rise to the present situation. The claimants are owners of the land falling in the revenue estate of Village Rithala. Notification under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act were simultaneously issued on 20th February, 1981 for acquiring large tract of land including the land of the appellants. An award bearing No.20/82-83 dated 11th June, 1982 was made by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of the notified land and the Collector had assessed the price of the agricultural land on irrigated and unirrigated basis at Rs.3800/- per bigha and Rs.2600/- per bigha respectively. Aggrieved from this award of the Collector, the claimants had filed references under Section 18 of the Act, which were decided by the Reference Court vide its judgment and order dated 1st September, 1987. The compensation payable to the claimants was enhanced by the reference Court to Rs.20,000/- per bigha without any classification of the land. The claimants were still dissatisfied from the enhanced compensation. They filed Regular First Appeals before this Court. The appeal of Shiv Dhan Singh Vs. Union of India (RFA 893/87) was taken as a lead case. These appeals were dismissed by the High Court in limine vide its order dated 15th December, 1987. The order of the High Court was challenged by the claimants before the Supreme Court in SLP Nos. 4488-96/94. However, these Special leave petitions were also dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 2nd March, 1994 on the ground of delay. Certain other appeals were filed before the Supreme Court including in the case of Bir Singh and Ors. etc. etc. VS. Union of India etc. etc. Civil Appeal Nos. 1001-05/90. The ground taken up in these appeals was that the appeals in relation to the land acquisition of the same notification and village had been admitted by the High Court and were pending hearing and reference was made to RFA Nos. 182/88, 368/88 and 314/89. The Supreme Court vide its order dated 30th January, 1990 allowed the said appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court dismissing the appeals in limine and referred the matter to the High Court to be heard along with other Regular First Appeals.

(3.) In view of the fact that High Court had allowed the appeal of Jasrath and awarded higher compensation to the claimants, the present appellants filed an application being CM No. 501/2002 praying that the judgment of the Court dated 4th September, 2001 in Jasrath case may be made applicable to the claimants despite the fact that their appeals had been dismissed by the High Court in limine and their SLPs. against the order of the High Court dismissing their appeals in limine were also dismissed by the Supreme Court on the ground of delay vide its order dated 2nd March, 1994. This application was allowed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 19th July, 2002 and respondents were directed to pay to the appellants the compensation as has been determined by the High Court in Jasrath case.